A.
A.
A.
→
A.
4.
A.
A.
43.
45
sum of $775,950.00 has been paid in advance of calls". I suggest that is a purely voluntary addition of your own?.
Yes, but it was necessary to avoid a ridiculous discrepancy between the two paragraphs.
The case for the Crown is that the vertificate should possibly have read that the total number of shares is 10,080, the total amount of caah received by the company is 100,800.00. why should that not be a correct statement?. Because I consider it incorrect to say that we had not received no more than $100,800.00 in re spect of our shares.
You say that the form is intended to deal with the shares as far as they are paid up. This payment in advance of calls does not make these shares paid up to that extent?.
The Ordinance requires you to state the total amount of cash received gank by the Company in respect of all shares allotted, that is the actual wording of the Ordinance. I cannot say
money paid in advance of calls is not money paid in advance of shares.
Your case is that the money paid in advance of calls is money paid in respect of shares within the reading of this Ordinance?.
Yes.
You claim that the Company had received this Bun of 876,750.00 in cash, and the Crown suggest that the Company did not receive that sum and that you knew that the Company did not receive that xidn. That is the issue between you and the GAD WIL●
I have before me here an application of one Chung Tat Tu, I have the form here and a promissory note for $500.00. That Promissory Note for $500.00 was accepted by the bank in respect of the second call of b call for on that shareholder's shares. Therefore it would appear that that is the only consideration accepted by the Bank in respect of chat call.
Yes, my Lord.
well now, don't you agree that your figure $876, 750.00 is so far incorrect, that 500.00 ought to be deducted from itŸ,
i would not go that far, my Lord, because this is a Promissory Note payable on demand and was 200 cepted by the bank as cash and was paid into the Bank as such, It was made on the very day of the call, when it was not convenient, when he had not the money ready.
with the result that the bank had not the money but a promise to pay. You say that the Bank had the money?.
I say that the Bank accepted that as money and it was passed through the books as such. After all a banknote is only a promise to pay. Here is a Director of the bank and he promises to pay. You don't agree that the figure is incorrect to that extent?
I do not agree that the figure is incorrect, I may say there is a legal opinion. My opinion is the Bank was justified in accepting this as ough. (Promissory note handed to Jury for inspection).